++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you like what I do, and you want me to do more, you can: buy my books Bad Science and Bad Pharma, give them to your friends, put them on your reading list, employ me to do a talk, or tweet this article to your friends. Thanks!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

77 Responses

William M. said,

The redaction of FOX News must be a paradise for psychology students… All sorts of mentally disabled in one building.

On topic: this broadcasting is based on cherrypicked data as well. Almost all Western European countries have a state-organised healthcare system and as far as I know, the United Kingdom is the only country where doctors were involved in terrorist activities. Furthermore, I strongly doubt that these gentlemen would be able to prove the correlation between immigration/terrorism and healthcare. I do not have any numbers to support that, but my personal experiences strongly suggest otherwise. I live in Antwerp, a city with 472,000 inhabitants and the second largest muslim community in Belgium. I’ve never met a single Middle-Eastern immigrant who is active in the healthcare sector.

enzyme said,

muscleman said,

My viewing of that video leads me to conclude that the employing the offspring of Italian immigrants as TV pundits lowers the IQ of all concerned. It must be true since my viewing this video I have done some research.

AwesomeRobot said,

This, along with the comment sections of all the opinion articles with no bylines on foxnews.com lead me to believe that Fox News is actively fomenting an armed uprising of some sort.

If they aren’t stopped, there is going to be bloodshed over this. Someone who let themselves be convinced they need to protect their family from “Death Panels” is going to pull a gun and it’s going to be incredibly tragic. We need to hold Fox to some standard of integrity or it’s going to be bad news.

frans said,

mjs said,

The escalation in rhetoric and vehemence among people in the US with flat-out wrong/ignorant/fearful/bigoted ideas is horrifying. I seriously do not know what it’s going to take for these people to calm the f*** down.

IainW said,

hardindr said,

Ben, this is nothing new! The youtube video of this Fox News segment is over two years old! This kind of thing is in the right-wing media all the time in the US. Unfortunately, the responsible types in the mainstream media (and even the liberals in it) don’t do much to correct it.

Well of course Ben would try to disparage this – he’s *working* for the NHS and has clearly been brainwashed by its Liberal/Communist/Islamic tendencies. (Ideologies which, naturally, fit together perfectly.)

More seriously, I’m highly amused by the spin people are able to get out of the word ‘bureaucracy’. Presumably a non-bureaucratic health system is one in which, erm, nobody ever writes anything down?

You may argue that the above data fail to reflect the ratio of foreign to domestic doctors. It may well be that figures in the UK are only where they are because of immigrant doctors. However, Cavuto fails to explore the recruitment trends in the countries that have both universal healthcare and a very large number of medical professionals relative to the population.

Cavuto failed to note that GPs comprise a larger share of physicians in the UK than in the US. This is important because GP surgeries are often practices consisting of no more than a few doctors who choose to affiliate as a partnership or where a GP or two hire a small number of less senior GPs as employees. The individual GPs are very much noticed in such practices and patients who feel uncomfortable with their current GP can register with another GP in the area (thus depriving an individual practice of a regular payment for having the patient on their practice list). GPs do have an incentive for their practices to be well-respected.

Cavuto takes no account of the fact that Muslims in the US tend to be far better educated than the population at large and are overrepresented in the medical profession. This should be explored in further detail given the relative absence of violent extremism among the American Muslim population.

it’s true! Ben Goldacre is a Muslim Fundamentalist terrorist trying to finagle his was into the country by masquerading as a doctor so that he can wage war against our Christian freedoms. Let me go fetch my holy water…

pv said,

Unbelievably ignorant. I think they ought to be looking at the US education system if this is what they have to offer by way of informed and intelligent argument.
But I suppose in a nation of about 300 million you are going to find one or two morons. It’s just a shame they allow them access to broadcast media and guns.

ossian said,

This item is so inflammatory it is unbelievable. I am a white Scottish atheist and find this to be unapologetically racist, anti-muslim, anti-european, ignorant, etc,

The only bit that is accurate is the reference to the abject poverty suffered by our Doctors. I often see them going straight from Edinburgh Royal Infirmary to soup kitchens such as The Tower, The Witchery, and Rhubarb only pausing to pick up their merit award system bonuses.

xtaldave said,

Yeah, dead funny. But before you get too smug, Ben, may I just remind you that the BMA were vehemently opposed to the formation of the NHS in 1948. I suspect similar ludicrous reasons were cited for it being a Bad Thing.

Truffle said,

This is the most disgusting pack of lies I’ve heard in a long time – how do they get away with it??

The religious right in America are responsible for peddling so much of this s**t. They should spend less time protecting their blood money (in more ways than one!) profit, and should read the bible if they call themselves Christians – Jesus told people to help the poor and the sick, not to make money out of them!!!!

mikewhit said,

The good thing about the Taliban running the NHS (WTF?!!) is that they seem to be getting good results, as UK has lower rates of infant mortality, better life expectancy at birth and better health-adjusted life expectancy at birth in comparison to the US. In fact so does Japan, Sweden, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Italy, Norway, New Zealand etc etc. Maybe the Taliban has it’s hand in these state-run health care systems too… the plot thickens..

Oh… and of course all of these countries are achieving better health outcomes than the US do so without spending nearly as much money… but that is of course because the Taliban are so keen to work for peanuts… or something.

ilikescience said,

db said,

Oh of course there will be demand for doctors in the US, as soon as they have to cover the section of the population who currently have no coverage… which appears to be roughly similar to the population of England.

I like the ‘people in the UK are choosing to be scientists instead of doctors because doctors don’t earn that much’ part- I’m not commenting on doctors’ pay but on scientists’, and that must fall short of pay for doctors (I couldn’t find figures)

poolie said,

I have seen many complaints in the English press about low pay for doctors or more commonly for other medical staff. In Australia the terms and conditions are not great. In both countries this seems to cause a need to import staff. It’s just possible that if pay was higher there would be less need for it. It’s also possible there are other stronger factors, such as Australian urban doctors not wanting to work in remote areas for any money, or undergrads being put off by the hellish residency timetable.

Ephiny said,

If there is a shortage of ‘native’ doctors in the UK, I can’t imagine it’s caused by shortage of people wanting to become doctors – isn’t medicine one of the most over-subscribed degree courses that exists? Huge numbers of well-qualified applicants are turned away every year, because there’s just so much competition for the available places. (I’m assuming most people who apply for medical school are hoping to work as doctors, notwithstanding a few who might decide on a career change later, or perhaps want to go into biomedical research rather than practicing as a physician). This indicates to me that medicine is very much seen as a desirable and prestigious profession to get into. Doctors may not be as highly paid as investment bankers, say, but then they have the advantage of rather better job security, and I’m pretty sure it’s not actually ‘low pay’ compared to the national average.

It’s probably a different matter if you’re talking about other medical-related professions like nursing, and I have no idea how things are in Australia.

Exactly, Ephiny, I teach A level chemistry and many of my students, the ones with ambitions, anyway, want to sudy to be doctors or vet/dentistry. One of my Y13 students has just been turned down by all 5 of his universities and there’s nothing wrong with him. Granted he’s arrogant and self-opinionated, sees only his methods as being correct and can’t bear to be contradicted, but that’s all he needs, surely, and he’s a good worker with a perceptive mind and serious motivation.

Surely the obvious answer is that the NHS doesn’t have much to do with the training of most “foreign” doctors, so we end up with the ludicrous situation that English doctors or candidates have enormous problems, yet any number of quacks with qualifications to rival Dr. Nick’s (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Riviera) can creep in and wreak havoc, with poor language skills and little else. And our wages are surely much higher than those in parts of the World from which these people emanate. Sorry, I sound like a racist now, but it’s only a geographical reference.

I say all of this from a position of no information, only supposition and conjecture, highlighted by experience and hearsay. Just as good as any news media here or abroad, anyway!

Saddest thing is seeing so many of my Y13s wanting to take psychology degrees, don’t they want jobs?
I’m going on a bit, but there are so many other bright pupils who are not even going on to study science at A leve because it’s not cool and, frankly, more difficult than other subjects and they’d have to work harder.
Feel free to ignore me and concentrate on the issues, I’m rambling a bit, been on holiday, etc….

Bert said,

chrisangmar said,

>”Doesn’t Fox also do The Simpsons, Futurama and Family Guy ? I think they’re better comedy.”

And Matt Groening is not the only one to have mercilessly parodied Fox News lamentable standards of journalism. As he relates in this appearance on the Daily Show (www.youtube.com/watch?v=blUTIUxh-Mk).

heng said,

@Ephiny:
The point about courses being oversubscribed is interesting. This point just highlights how incompetent the UK government is. The government both train *and* employ the doctors in this country. There really is no excuse for running out! It clearly isn’t because of a shortfall in the number of people wanting to study medicine.

viriato said,

I’m from Portugal, a small country next to spain, in Europe. As far as I can remember we have a national health care system. It work fine as I can choose between a private security plan for some minor health problems, as dentists and I have The National System for some major problems, lets say a cancer or a major surgery. It takes longer but it’s almost free.
I have been following the Obama’s health plan reform and honestly I cannot understand why people are against a universal system. Many people are left out and if the insurance doesn’t pay for a specific treatment most people cannot afford it. So what’s the problem ?

Republicans are not very smart are they ? In Europe Most countries have a national health plan and we live ok : ))) And we are not communists , LOLLL

Guy Chapman said,

ChickPea57 said,

“Doctors may not be as highly paid as investment bankers, say, but then they have the advantage of rather better job security, and I’m pretty sure it’s not actually ‘low pay’ compared to the national average.”

Judicator1 said,

Even if you accept whatever they’re saying as factually accurate (a longshot), it’s internally inconsistent. You can’t have it be the case that low doctor pay (compared to the US) both discourages people from entering the health care industry (UK natives) AND encourages more people to come to the UK rather than the US. If the US actually does pay a higher salary and its equally easy to get into both countries, we should see more foreign doctors in the US.

skipissatan said,

This is absolutely brilliant- did fox see Brass Eye and decide to let chris morris run their news channel? Interestingly our terrorist nhs seems to have only a 1/3 of the fatalities per 100 000 from MRSA infection that the USA enjoys.

tyeefellows said,

The idea purposed in the video is no doubt a negative factor that comes along for the ride with a National run Health care system. However this is just another excuse for people to oppose National Health care. Sure that Nationally run Health care systems pay their physicians less, causing fewer local doctors and an increase of foreign ones. And of these foreign doctors, a big chunk of them are Muslim. And of these Muslim doctors, there are a few bad apples. But you have to look at the big picture, not every Muslim is a terrorist. So this is where this so called “Breeding Ground of Terrorism” fails. Other Contributing factors to the failure of this idiotic question is both national and private systems import a number of doctors. So switching systems would only increase the number of imported physicians by a realistically small amount. Where is this evidence to back this up? Sure the UK have 8 “questionable terrorist” out of the whole country. But if you look at Canada, do you see any “questionable terrorist?”

The global health care system is struggling to meet demand because there is such a shortage on the supply of physicians and to have a broadcast that on the fox news titled “National Healthcare: a breeding ground for terrorism?” and the focus of the discussion is a rather implicit judgment on the Muslim people. This broadcast is more or less saying that every Muslim that will practice in another country as a doctor will cause terror. I mean there is news of some Muslim terror but it does not mean that everyone of the Muslim is going to behave extremely unethically. In addition to this people studying to become a doctor have to commit to many years of training first as a student, then residency, and then possibly finding a specialty to focus on which can take many more years. With all these years of devotion and the pay to medical student loans ratio is becoming very unbalanced many people choose to focus on a different profession and if the Muslim are creating doctors to fill the gaps in the health care system the countries should be great full and not assume the worst.

joanna said,

The claim that having a national health care system is a breeding ground for terrorism is an attempt to use scare tactics towards the general US public to persuade them to fear implementing a national health care system. The claim is only based on a number of 8 imported Muslim doctors in the UK, which is only one country that has a universal health care system. The US is the only industrialized country that has not implemented a universal health care system. No one was killed in this one incident in this one country with national health care, but many die every year in the US from limited access to health care. Even the best US insurance policies don’t approve of all operations and procedures. It is also ridiculous to claim that importing doctors leads to terrorism since becoming a doctor is not the only way for a terrorist to enter an industrialized country. The claims in this video are a ridiculous attempt at creating fear in the general public towards a national health care system.

Lethologica said,

It isn’t clear, certainly. Bowyer suggests that there is some link between state-run healthcare and terrorism, but the order of cause and effect is muddled. Are there doctors in the middle east who would like to be terrorists but can’t manage to get into Britain or the US to set off bombs? Why would a terrorist doctor have to be employed in Britain to set off an explosive? Doctors are excellent travel visa candidates.

The alternative is that middle eastern doctors are predisposed to become terrorists after working in Britain. This is clearly inaccurate. If Britain is importing half its doctors and if most of those are Muslim and if Muslim doctors are likely to become terrorists then there ought to be thousands of British doctors setting off bombs. Eight would be far too few.

Of course, the suggestion that most of Britain’s doctors are imported Muslims is imprecise on its own. How many of the imported doctors are Muslim? Bowyer only says “many” or “most”. What does that really mean? Doctors work for decades. Presumably even if half of Britain’s new doctors were imported Muslims, the vaster number of currently working doctors would be those who were working in Britain before this flood of immigrants. It’s hard to say.

Bowyer suggests that the “bureaucratic” nature of the NHS is responsible for his (fictitious) influx of terrorist doctors, but its hard to see how bureaucracy is relevant here. Do terrorists like paperwork? The US easily outstrips Britain in healthcare paperwork because in addition to health records American doctors maintain billing records and malpractice insurance. This may tempt paper-hungry terrorists to American shores.

Bowyer’s idea of terrorist doctors is most frustratingly a shallow one. Even if we stipulated a wave of immigrant terrorist healthcare workers, one would presume that driving a van full of explosives to the airport is the least direct way for them to kill people. Providing bad health care would be much more effective and much safer. The risk profile on the van plot is so ridiculous in comparison to just injecting people with poison at the hospital that anyone should immediately wonder if Dr. Mohammed Asha has something very wrong with his thinking apparatus. Considering the idea of terrorist doctors in depth leads inescapably to the conclusion that Asha and his accomplices are unusual and broken men.

Taking a broader view, it’s difficult to see the idea of health care terrorism as a significant portion of health care policy. This single event didn’t even kill or injure any people who weren’t involved in the plot. Poor access to US health care kills thousands of people every year. The balance of innocent deaths is thousands to zero, which is infinitely worse.

-Heather

yonahdwor said,

The statement that being a doctor in England is not prestigious, is not precise. England is a country of many classes and culture groups. Among which of these is being a doctor no longer prestigious.
Mr. Bowyer states that fifty percent of physicians in England are foreign born and only twenty five percent of American doctors are foreign born. Clearly this has more to do with geography than prestige, money or terrorism. England is in the European Union, which means that it not only easier for physicians in the EU to immigrate to the UK, they don’t have to go through the same bureaucratic red tape that an immigrant to the United States would have to deal with. Although the United States has a close relationship with its two neighbors Canada and Mexico, the United Kingdom has a close relationship with the twenty six other countries of the European Union.
Also, the statements that fifty percent of physicians and nurses in the UK are foreign born, and that the Muslim world is overproducing medical professionals, does not at all mean that even a minority of the foreign born medical professionals in the UK are of Muslim decent.
Another way to see the influx of foreign born medical professionals in the United Kingdom is, as a blessing. For without the foreign born medical personal there would be a serious shortage of skilled physicians and nurses. That these people are willing to spend years and thousands upon thousands of dollars to get degrees in there respective fields, move to the UK, and make less money than they would if the worked in a privatized system, is indeed fortunate for the people that depend on the services that the National Health provides.

funston101 said,

1. Clarity: In most ways, Ben makes what he is saying quite clear, though I do not have a very clear understanding of what he is considering the problem to be. Is he making the statement that the health care system in the United Kingdom is doomed because of the sudden appearance of Muslim’s? What exactly is the problem there- why does that automatically mean that they are breeding ground for terrorism? By saying that their presence “creates vulnerability” is a poor example- any skilled or unskilled person could pose the same vulnerability in the health care system.

2. Accuracy: The statements made by this guy may be somewhat clear, but it is not fact. It is merely an assumption. Nothing along the lines of terrorism has been displayed through the presence of Muslims in the state run enterprises. Just because these Muslims are in larger enterprises, does not mean that they are thinking up the next move because they are “invisible.”

3. Precision: There is not enough detail and specific points to make this source reliable. What makes these people all terrorists? What exactly do these eight people they show at the beginning of the clip have to do with the other Muslim doctors recruited and employed?

4. Relevance: I’d like to know what the relevance of the images is in the clip. Bombings, cars on fire, smoke- is this just to instill fear into society? Are they relevant at all to any terrorist attacks? The statement that Britain is going to tighten its standards and makes changes to the visa to allow them in is also quite bold, such a thing should not be stated regarding something with little or no fact.

5. Depth: Once again, Ben is making a very bold statement. I would really like to know more information about what would make him say such a thing. What is the background behind this? Why should I believe that because there is Muslims in the healthcare system that there is actually infiltration occurring.

6. Breadth: I’m sure from the point of view of George Bush, he would be quick to agree. We could even go as far as to say that if Ben was not a doctor, he would be a Muslim extremist. From the point of view of these guys give, it is all just paranoia. I would like to hear the view of non-Muslim workers within the health care system, or perhaps the standpoint of a Muslim worker themselves.

7. Logic: In no way does this statement make sense. Britain faces shortages in state run enterprises and there is not the same level of prestige or economic achievement; therefore, they are importing physicians from abroad. Furthermore, these “guys” from abroad are infiltrators. Where is the link there? What piece of information makes the second statement follow the first?

There is not much logic to Bens statement. He is basically adding to a streotype that the majority of muslims are terrorist. That is not true, because they most definitly are not. There are many muslims in the world and most are peaceful. It may be correct to say that the majorty of terrorists are muslims, but that is much different from saying most muslims are terrorists, which is what Ben is potraying in this clip.

douggordon said,

With the convenient placement of attention catching words such as “Osama Bin Laden”, “Jihadists”, “Islam”, and a panoramic view of the bombed car blackened with ash as it burns, it is difficult to remember that we are still talking about health care.

This piece uses confusion and scare tactics coupled with misleading and meticulously cherry-picked data to instill fear in an already frightened population. The interviewer suggested that there was a direct link between the Muslim population in Birmingham and the rise in Muslim doctors – however, Muslim South Asian/Middle Eastern immigration and settlement in the UK has happened for decades, well before the rise of modern-day Islamist fundamentalist terror acts. Their immigration West is related to the UK’s colonial ties to the regions, not an implicit plot to flood Western nations allied with the US.

Jerry Bowyer compares the system of the National health care to the post office as both are considered government-run bureaucracies in his eyes. It is well known that certain acts of terrorism have been committed through the post (e.g. letterbombs, Anthrax). Thus, he uses this example on purpose to correlate terror acts with national healthcare – which is ridiculous if you seriously think about it, as they are run entirely differently (your mail is not your health) while still being nationalised. At no point are the pros of American health care reform even vocalized or considered. It leaves the impression that anyone in favour of Health-care Reform supports terrorists. Incidentally, this report also neglects to mention that the UK system of health care, or public health care systems, are not uncommon internationally. Canada, for example, has a single payer system of Public health care, which to my knowledge has not led to an uprising of terrorist activities within its borders.

Group5swalters said,

There are many issues that dominate this news story, and demand further exploration and attention. These issues include racism, media influence, and scare tactics. Such topics are ones that shake the foundation upon which our society as a whole is based.
When dealing with a media source such as the News, it must be taken into account that the audience is nation wide- entering the homes of millions of Americans. These homes include some of the worlds most easily influenced people- children. When the news runs a story with an underlying tone of racist remarks, hatred and disgust, we can only imagine how those tones will one day resurface as beliefs of many adults. This influence is also known as propaganda.
With such pressure and derogatory terminology around a particular minority, it is safe to say that whether these newscasters know it or not, they are being completely racist. Every comment about Muslims being ‘untrustworthy’ or ‘cheating the system’ in this newscast is another targeted jab at a culture which is trying to rebuild their image in society.
Watching this newscast provides us with one side of a story, whether biased or not. We are only receiving half the information we need to make informed decisions on what we are watching. To form an opinion that is reliable, we need to look further into these pressing issues.

YigitYuce said,

Mr Bowyer argued that national health care systems are breeding grounds for terrorists because they are “bureaucratic.” Well first of all my family is Muslim and my brother is in Medical school, for his statement to be true, my brother will become a doctor and then become a terrorist and kill people. The stereotyping shows how someone can be prejudgemental about an issue this important. A highly educated doctor spends years in medical school to become a terrorist, there seems to be a lack of logic in this argument. This is clearly a failed discussion between the fox news reporter and Mr Bowyer, no clear information or argument and a clear solution to this argument. “We didn’t say National Healthcare was a breeding ground, we’re just asking.” he then mentions ”Osama bin laden” and ”terrorists” in the same topic, which makes his argument very off balance.

ashleyanderson said,

The fundamental purpose in Fox News discussion is to suggest that the National Health Care Association is infiltrating terrorism because foreign born Muslims were the suspects in the attacks. Jerry seems to approach this issue from a one-sided, correlated all assuming, perspective with no discussion of evidence that would negate his accusations which is a necessity if one wants their audience to lean in his favour. The author is assuming that because of the suspects’ struggling, inconsistent political-social background that they are most likely to be a rising problem in the future. Fox News implies that because the U.K. views its physicians as “civil servants” there is less of an interest into that profession hence less enrolments. As a consequence the U.K. is forced to import more foreign born doctors. Jerry uses this importation influx to imply the rise and reason for terrorist attacks stemming from professions in the National Health Care system. The fundamental inference concluded here seem to come from very basic assumptions with no evidence of deep analysis supporting the likeliness of having future threats in other state run health care systems.

I will summerize what was discussed in the first discussion because I feel that they are vital questions. Was Burmingham, England the only country that has had such attacks or is there other countries that have also imported Muslim physicians that have experienced like threats? In that particular area the foreign born population was up 30%. Were all the foreign born people concluded it that statistic from Arab counties and were they all employed in the health care sector? The U.K. imports 50% of their physicians because of the shortage in local born doctors. Of that 50% what percentage are Muslims? Could it be that the U.K. chooses to import most of their physicians from Arab countries not because of need and availability but because of their domineering academic achievements. They don’t have to import from Arab countries, they choose to, with a very strict credential and application process I’m sure. I am also curious to know how long this visible minority has occupied the U.K. with no threats of terror. Not that that is substancial but it is relevant.

It was argued that terrorists are hiding in the shadows of bureaucratic systems, finding it easier to “game the system”. There are many other organizations under burocratic governments that import foreign professionals. Have there been any lethal attacks stemming from such systems, associations or organizations that can loosly support the accusations on importation of terror? I think the best way to approach this issue is with an open-mind and with good solid eveidence that can statistically prove an increase in terrorists attacks fro those working in the health care sector and other occupational sectors as well. This is an entersting issue given the economic and politcal instability in the present time.

Groupaswalters said,

The title of this news story, “National Healthcare: Breeding Ground for Terror?”, has clearly been chosen for its shock value in order to entice potential viewers to watch the interview. Not only does it mislead viewers of the interview, but it is sensationalist and fear-based. Remove the question mark and it appears as fact. It paints the picture that, when we are sick and in our most vulnerable state, we are at risk of being attacked by terrorists. It plays psychologically on human fears and creates an “us against them” scenario in the minds of the audience. This is demonstrated when Cavuto notes the high Muslim population in Birmingham, England, and suggests that “maybe that’s the problem.”

Setting up a theory in which you try to connect two very different topics, terrorism and health care, requires a great deal of supporting data to add depth to the discussion. The story needed to be supported with clear and verifiable facts from reliable sources in order to make a convincing argument. Fox News chooses to utilize Jerry Bowyer from National Review Online as a reputable source, but the National Review Online has a clear right-wing bias as any viewer can see from the headlines on their website. Articles such as “President Obama is pursuing a nakedly redistributionist and statist agenda” and “Reform watch: only 38% want Obamacare; 65% of doctors against” help demonstrate this bias.

There was no depth in any of the arguments made towards national health care being a reason for terrorism. Statistics used were not cited from any reliable research and could not be referenced, and as a result, Bowyer weakens his argument by relying on emotional response rather than empirical evidence to convince the viewer. During the interview, Bowyer states that “the United Kingdom is the largest importer of medical personnel in the world” (0:43). However, he provides no supporting details from verifiable sources so that viewers know where he got this fact from. This habit of presenting information in the interview as fact without citing reputable sources continues throughout the entirety of his interview. During the discussion, Bowyer states “… physicians in the United Kingdom are civil servants. You don’t have the same level of prestige; you don’t have the same level of economic achievement.” (1:20) In this statement, Bowyer doesn’t provide any specific details to support his claim that British doctors make less money because of their status as civil servants, instead relying on the viewing audience to accept his word as the truth despite his lack of credentials.

Bowyer claims, as part of his argument, that “in closed societies like Saudi Arabia or Jordan, where you don’t have much else to do ‘cause you don’t have much of a business or entrepreneurial sector”(1:50), many people decide to become doctors. However, research on small business in Saudi Arabia shows that there are “an estimated 500,000 registered SMEs” (small to medium enterprises) in the country; quite a lot for a country of only 27 million. Saudi Arabian small businesses also came out on top in a recent HSBC survey of emerging markets as some of the most optimistic about their businesses despite the current global economic situation. It doesn’t seem very accurate of Bowyer to claim that people in these Muslim countries become doctors because they don’t have many other options when clearly they have a sizeable entrepreneurial sector.

Also, quick research from the UK National Statistics Publication shows that “just under half (46 per cent) of Muslims living in Great Britain in 2001 had been born in the UK.” According to these numbers, there are approximately 1.6 million Muslims living in Britain, which means that around 740,000 were born in the UK. Of course, the doctors in question may have been born in a different country, but it is terribly close-minded of Jerry Bowyer to assume that the doctors are not British-born just because they are not Caucasian Christians.

Bowyer’s lack of verifiable sources and credentials that are expected of someone with expertise in the health care field makes his argument hard to follow. He presents an opinion that relies more on emotion and fear than on statistics and data from sources recognized for their credibility. After the 5 minute video, the audience is left with more questions than should be expected from a news broadcast, which is supposed to inform viewers about factual information.

Mel-Group1 said,

I had to unfortunately watch this video a few times in order to pick up on all of the ridiculous claims made by Jerry Bowyer. At first I kept getting stuck on all the information being spewed out with no facts to back it up. The amount of information they give through their one-liner statements is incredible. They continue to offer up these one-liners and have to move on so quickly because they have no evidence to support what they are saying.

This of course finally made me realize that this video has little to do with concern for terrorism but an anti-NHS rant. It is very clear that Bowyer is opposed to a National Healthcare System. He makes numerous statements such as:

“The terrorists have shown over and over again that they are very good at gaming the system with bureaucracies, they’re very good a figuring out to get around bureaucracies.

“United Kingdom is the largest importer of medical personnel in the world, feeding them into this huge, bureaucratic system and that’s going to create a certain amount of vulnerability. There’s a lot of anonymity, it’s easy to hide.

“If we go with a British-style or German-style system, we are going to have British-style and German-style recruitment problems and we are going to turn to the Arab and Muslim world for doctors. If we organise ourselves in that way, Neil, we are going to find ourselves with bureaucracies which find it hard to shield themselves from infiltration from terrorists”
These comments are so off base they could have only been said to mislead the listeners into believing that the NHS is not safe and that the “American-style” is better. It is a poor attempt to strike fear into people to get them to be afraid of any change. Bowyer fails to mention that the UK’s NHS doctors are required to treat everyone. Not just the people who can afford health insurance. British citizens have the legal right to healthcare and it’s free at the point of delivery. Of course if Bowyer mentioned this it would have shed light on to his hidden agenda, which could be considered a terrorist attack in itself!

YigitYuce said,

Bowyer that national health care systems are breeding grounds for terrorists because they are “bureaucratic.” The stereotyping shows how someone can be prejudgemental about an issue this important. A highly educated doctor spends years in medical school to become a terrorist, there seems to be a lack of logic in this argument. “We didn’t say National Healthcare was a breeding ground, we’re just asking.” he then mentions ”Osama bin laden” and ”terrorists” in the same topic, which makes his argument very off balance.
he claims as their healthcare system being the best in the world. According to WHO USA is ranked 37th in the healthcare system and bowyer talks about bringing foreign doctors will bring more terrorists to the US. This is a different way of saying foreign doctors are all terrorists.
Although this was shown as 4 minute dialog between 2 people on fox news, there were no feedback or arguments leading after at all.
Bowyer also claimed that in the United States, “if one of your doctors is
spending all the time online reading Osama bin Laden fatwas, someone’s going
to notice that.”
Bowyer is an American radio and broadcasting host who also been involved in public affairs, political writing, and investment activities a former accountant who talks about terrorism relating to healthcare systems. It is so off topic that the actual side to blame here is fox news to let such a person come out and speak his mind about such an issue.

rachaels said,

The debate on universal healthcare has been discussed by many however Mr. Bowyer’s perspective seems to be irrational at best. He uses the argument that when countries are in short supply of doctors, recruitment for foreign doctors becomes necessary. He states that a potential consequence of foreign doctor recruitment particularly from Muslim countries may result in a breeding ground for terrorist activity. The only example that Bowyer sites is that of the United Kingdom. While other countries that have universal health care, and have had no terrorists incidents, are not mentioned.

It is also interesting that Fox choose to show images of the UK terrorist’s attacks while Mr. Bowyer shared his perspective. Would this not strengthen his argument for those viewers who are easily influenced by media images? Perhaps Fox could have showed a continuous stream of images showing doctors working with patients in health care facilities. Hopefully viewers who saw this broadcast are intelligent enough not to be swayed by one man’s biased opinion that clearly lacks substantial evidence. Mr. Bowyer is playing the terrorism card to his advantage in the debate on universal healthcare. The recruitment of foreign doctors may actually improve the US health system. Hopefully most individuals who viewed this broadcast have the intelligence to disregard the Mr. Bowyer’s logic or at least challenge some of his ideas.

dickson_cheung said,

National health care system is a breeding ground for terrorism is an arbitrary conclusion. The claim just based on some rarely seen cases, and draw the conclusion by a part. The small proportion of terrorists infiltrated into those imported physicians couldn’t convince us that the terrorism is breeding in the national health scheme. 50% of the UK physicians are imported from aboard provided a opportunity for terrorists to infiltrate into UK, but that is not a loophole in the national health care system. This case just show that terrorists would find different ways to spread terrorism, trained physicians and sent them to target countries is one of the device only. Jerry Bowyer ‘s claim is full of racism, there are no strong evidence that showing the connection of the muslim physicians and terroists. Muslim world is very good at creating physicians, and I believe that the majority are ethical and anti-terrorism. Purpose of terrorism is spread of fear, Jerry Bowyer ‘s claim is not factual and somehow helping the terroists to spread fear among community.

lor said,

It seems Fox News is simply creating a broad generalization in hopes to place fear in the American people. They make it out to seem like all Muslims are terrorists, ready to strike at any second, when this is clearly not the case. They say that Britain’s national healthcare system has a far higher percentage of foreign physicians compared to private ones, like the United States, but how much higher exactly? They never do tell us. They also do not tell how many Muslims are currently practicing medicine in the U.S. Neil also states that they are not “judging healthcare one way or another,” but is this not what they have been doing for the past five minutes? There is no logic to that statement. If they are not judging it then why air a five minute segment on a claim as obscure as this? In short the argument presented by Bowyer is incredibly one-sided and lacks any real facts.

adriendandrade said,

This is just another example of how the media plays on the fears and prejudices of the audience and viewers. There is already much debate in the United States about whether they should or should not move to a state run halthcare system. Also, the US already has a prejudice against muslim and middle eastern immigrants. Without including statistics of how many middle eastern imported physicians have ever been a part in terrorist activities, the broadcasters have led the viewers to believe that all imported doctors are potentially terrorists. The clip contributes to an already divided racial line between Americans and Middle eastern immigrants.
The debate on universal healthcare has been discussed by many however Mr. Bowyer’s perspective seems to be irrational at best. He uses the arguement that when countries are in short supply of doctors, recruitment for foreign doctors becomes necessary. He states that a potential consequence of foreign doctor recruitment, particularly from Muslim countries, may result in a breeding ground for terrorist activity. The only example that Bowyer sites is that of the United Kingdom, while other countries that have universal health care, and have had no terrorist incidents, are not mentioned.
It is also interesting that Fox choose to show images of the UK terrorist’s attacks while Mr. Bowyer shared his perspective. Would this not strengthen his argument for those viewers who are easily influenced by media images? Perhaps Fox could have showed a continuous stream of images showing doctors working with patients in health care facilities. Hopefully viewers who saw this broadcast are intelligent enough not to be swayed by one man’s biased opinion that clearly lacks substantial evidence. Mr. Bowyer is playing the terrorism card to his advantage in the debate on universal healthcare. The recruitment of foreign doctors may actually improve the US health system. Hopefully most individuals who viewed this broadcast have the intelligence to disregard the Mr. Bowyer’s logic or at least challenge some of his ideas.
The causality between national health care and Islamic terrorism is neither accurate nor relevant in this video.They have generalised the idea that Islamic terrorism will breed in the US based soley on the example of the UK
terrorist attacks.This is not relevant for other countries that do have a national health care system like Canada and Austrailia. Countries like these have a number of muslim doctors and have not been on the receiving end of a wide scale terrorist attack.

Also Fox News cannot be considered a reliable source as it has a long history of being biased against democratic national ideas, national healthcare being one of them. It is recorded that Fox news leans towards the right wingpolicies, Bill O’Reilly the host of Fox news has himself stated “Fox does tilt right”. Therefore the validity of this video and what they are stating can be seriously questioned as a biased view against national healthcare.
With very little statistical eveidence to back of the claims made in Bowyer’s statements, the credibility of this article is mediocre at best. It is a biased opinion that is being used to drive the fears of US citizens through the media channel. This can be seen as more of an attack on the national healthcare system and the muslim community rather than a news story.

Psych 100-06 said,

-The news talks about UK doctors not having prestige as American doctors, but it doesn’t reveal where the information is from. Therefore, this does not give us any sense of accuracy about the information.
-The news does not provide accurate statistics or numbers in detail. Jerry rather says, “Half of the doctors are foreign born…and the nurses.”
-The news keeps mentioning the high percentage of foreign born doctors in the UK, however he never mentions where these foreign born doctors were originally from. They could have easily been from Canada, the US, and other countries in Europe other than the UK. Therefore, trying to make a connection between foreign born doctors and terrorism is a far reach.

2.Lack of depth and breadth of the information released.

-Reasons of rise in terror attacks are a very complex issue, but the information released in the news only scratches the surface. It does not go into detail on some of the points that he talks about, such as higher immigration rates of Muslims in general.
-Moreover, the news is not dealing with the most significant factors of the issue. Ayer(2009) analyzed different factors that may cause terror attacks by using data from the National Counterterrorism Center and the Central Intelligence Agency. She concludes that countries that allocate a large portion of GDP on military expenses are more likely to suffer from terror attacks. This is an alternative explanation for what Fox news states, and also a contradictory data. It is contradictory because according to Shah (2009), United States military spending accounts 48% of the world’s total military spending while UK is only 4.5%. Alan Krueger who is a Princeton University economist and professor even strengthens this argument by saying, “Countries with advanced economies as well as a high degree of civil liberties are most likely to face the brunt of terror attacks (Ians, 2009).” The three different studies agree that the economic status and the allocation of national spending may be the most significant causal factors to the vulnerability of the country towards terror attacks.
-The argument the news is making does not embrace diverse point of view. Canada has a universal health care system and is a very multicultural country; however there has never been a terror attack in the country while the US who has a privatized health care system has seen its share of attacks.
-The news says that there are a high number of Muslim doctors in the UK universal health care system and tries to relate being Muslim and being from the Middle East with terrorism; however it fails to realize that not all Muslims are from the Middle East. Countries such as Palestine, Azerbaijan, Mali, Malaysia, Indonesia, and many others have high Muslim populations as well.
-It does not include the UK’s long history of colonization and recent wars in Muslim countries as possible factors.

3.The news fails to address its information logically.

-It says that US imports 25% of its doctors while the UK does around half. The terrorists could have easily been a part of the American’s 25% imported doctors.

Jessicap said,

This video is a good example of what millions of americans already think and believe. Although these thoughts are underdeveloped and don’t have any real evidence to support them they are fuelled by fear and ignorance. Muslim people are not all jihads and do not support terrorism. The media has taken what has happened to america and connected there beliefs about terrorism to Muslims and made the two the same. This videos is very wide spread, playing on the news as would any story without a second thought to the significant bias and the racial subject matter. The problem with this video isn’t even those who already feel this way, although that is an issue, it is the millions of people who will form there opinions to mirror these newscasters. Thousands of these people are doctors wanting to start there own practises who will discriminate against these peoples race and religion because they don’t want to work with a terrorist. It also puts a negative connotation to universal healthcare which would be vitally important for many american families. Now people who may be able to help low income families may have a tainted opinion about what will happen to there country if they allow terrorist to infiltrate there healthcare system. Without credible information to back up any claim the accuracy of the story just isn’t there.

RitoB said,

This is a perfect example of building fear in the American population. Being born and raised in Canada where National Healthcare is a sought after government benefit, I do not believe this is an accurate depiction of the National Healthcare system. I have seen many people in my life benefit from the healthcare system and I have not once seen any doctors or nurses arrested for being suspected of terrorist activity. That leads me to another point, they have been arrested on suspicion, but have they been convicted yet? I do not believe so. I guess the “Innocent until proven guilty” does not apply in this case and we should jump to conclusions about National Healthcare being a breeding ground for terrorist activity. Are there not any other examples of terrorist activity among immigrated doctors in other countries than run a National Healthcare system? These reporters should not be allowed to bring there own prejudice and biases ideas into a broadcast and should consider other sides of the story.

group B said,

Many different points were raised during the clip, however before any explanation was provided, they would move on to another disjointed statement. The lack of clarity then opens the clip up for interpretation, which is completely tainted by the juxtaposition of shocking images. Their vague statements do not explain the images in the background, and the viewer is left to create the fantasy of an unclear correlation between nationalized health care and Islamic terrorism.

All the information provided in this clip, is inaccurate despite how little information there actually is. The speaker claims the shortage of doctors is due to a low salary in the United Kingdom, which cannot be the case as the average doctor makes 118,000 pounds a year or 208,000 Canadian dollars. They also put forth the idea that because Birmingham has a population which is 30% Muslim, more attacks are likely to occur. This is incredibly racist, and has no basis for the information to be accurate.

Much of the information provided is not precise towards any significant point. Jerry states in the video, “I looked at the statistics for foreign born physicians in countries that have state run health care enterprises” though he does not precisely quote any numbers. The anchorman states “all 8 UK terror subjects” though there are only six names and two pictures. One of the pictures is black and white; the other is not and is shown several times in the video with his name. Dr. Mohammad Asha was however found not guilty after the trial and is known now not to be a terrorist. In the video no actual allegations are made against him, so his presence is imprecise and unnecessary.

This video significantly lacks depth because it only shows some of the information in a given subject. They never actually explain why a bureaucracy is easier to infiltrate than a private practice, other than the notion that in a private practice the other medical professionals would judge each other based on their religion.

There is never a quotation or opinion from anyone in this video other than Jerry and the anchorman. Between these two voices all information boils down to the same narrow consensus about what the reality of the situation is. They could have taken the time to consult someone who really knows what they are talking about to change the lack of breadth in this video, a doctor in the United Kingdom for example. It is frightening how Jerry never quotes any of the sources of his information; the breadth of the discussion here only spans the minds of two men for five minutes.

The opening statement of the segment itself is illogical how the anchorman phrased it.
“Well all 8 UK terror suspects were doctors or worked in the health care profession is it because Britain’s national health care system pays physicians such a low salary that they have a shortage of doctors forcing the country then to recruit from foreign countries”

What is trying to be implied here? If all the suspects were actually born in the UK, why is he making sure to point out the UK recruits from foreign countries? Is he generalizing foreigners with terrorism? This statement is the opening thesis for the discussion and it does not make sense, the whole video thus being illogical.

Group B- Psych 100-71 said,

Many different points were raised during the clip, however before any explanation was provided, they would move on to another disjointed statement. The lack of clarity then opens the clip up for interpretation, which is completely tainted by the juxtaposition of shocking images. Their vague statements do not explain the images in the background, and the viewer is left to create the fantasy of an unclear correlation between nationalized health care and Islamic terrorism.

All the information provided in this clip, is inaccurate despite how little information there actually is. The speaker claims the shortage of doctors is due to a low salary in the United Kingdom, which cannot be the case as the average doctor makes 118,000 pounds a year or 208,000 Canadian dollars. They also put forth the idea that because Birmingham has a population which is 30% Muslim, more attacks are likely to occur. This is incredibly racist, and has no basis for the information to be accurate.

Much of the information provided is not precise towards any significant point. Jerry states in the video, “I looked at the statistics for foreign born physicians in countries that have state run health care enterprises” though he does not precisely quote any numbers. The anchorman states “all 8 UK terror subjects” though there are only six names and two pictures. One of the pictures is black and white; the other is not and is shown several times in the video with his name. Dr. Mohammad Asha was however found not guilty after the trial and is known now not to be a terrorist. In the video no actual allegations are made against him, so his presence is imprecise and unnecessary.

This video significantly lacks depth because it only shows some of the information in a given subject. They never actually explain why a bureaucracy is easier to infiltrate than a private practice, other than the notion that in a private practice the other medical professionals would judge each other based on their religion.

There is never a quotation or opinion from anyone in this video other than Jerry and the anchorman. Between these two voices all information boils down to the same narrow consensus about what the reality of the situation is. They could have taken the time to consult someone who really knows what they are talking about to change the lack of breadth in this video, a doctor in the United Kingdom for example. It is frightening how Jerry never quotes any of the sources of his information; the breadth of the discussion here only spans the minds of two men for five minutes.

The opening statement of the segment itself is illogical how the anchorman phrased it.

“Well all 8 UK terror suspects were doctors or worked in the healthcare profession is it because Britain’s national health care system pays physicians such a low salary that they have a shortage of doctors forcing the country then to recruit from foreign countries”

What is trying to be implied here? If all the suspects were actually born in the UK, why is he making sure to point out the UK recruits from foreign countries? Is he generalizing foreigners with terrorism? This statement is the opening thesis for the discussion and it does not make sense, the whole video thus being illogical.

group c said,

The Video titled National Healthcare: Breeding ground for terror? portrays a very bias right-wing view of the consequences of integrating “Muslim” doctors into a national health care system. The purpose of the video is to instil and evoke fear in the general American population towards a National Healthcare system, a system that has been recently introduced by President Barack Obama as a possible solution for the healthcare problems in the United States. The video implies that a bureaucratic National Healthcare System, such as the one established in the UK, has a tendency to import more foreign born healthcare workers specifically from “the Muslim world” and has been the causal factor for previous terrorist attacks.

Jerry Bowyer is an accountant by first profession (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Bowyer) and does not have the background, knowledge or facts to be speaking on the topic from a professional view. He relies on his own assumptions, with no evidence to support what he is in fact trying to prove. He simply makes statements without elaborating on why he has arrived at such conclusions. He makes claims such as, “The United Kingdom is the largest importer of medical personnel in the world” and “Well you’ve got shortages in doctors and nurses basically wherever you have state-run healthcare” but he gives us no evidence, no empirical data to support these statements. While the point which he is trying to prove may be clear, that the US should avoid an National Healthcare system because it is “more diluted” and therefore would make it too easy for the supposed “Muslim terrorist doctors” to get away with planning an attack, his lack of supporting evidence causes his theory to correlate a National Healthcare System with terrorism to be entirely unclear.

Mr. Bowyer points out that UK physicians are paid such low salaries that it forces the country to recruit from foreign countries. According to (www.payscale.com) the comparison between the salary for a family physician/doctor in the UK is approximately $100,906USD and the average salary for a US physician is $134,780USD. This is not a significant difference therefore the suggestion that they import based on the fact that they offer such low salaries is not an accurate reason. Also according to (mdsalaries.blogspot.com) UK physicians can potentially make up to £ 380,000 per year by working overtime to increase their salaries, that’s nearly $559,000US.

In trying to make a connection he also brought forth the statistic that one half of the United Kingdom doctors and nurses are imported from another country while only one quarter of the United States medical personal were not home grown. While these statistics are interesting, according to (www.wikipedia.org) America and the UK have had roughly the same number of terrorist attacks, if not more in America. A little more of a comparative study should be used when trying to show the positive difference between two nations; especially when what you are trying to defend as superior is actually inferior in the cause. He also completely abandoned using Canada’s healthcare system as an avenue to further support his stance, likely because Canada does not have a history of significant terrorism, which would debunk Bowyer’s theory.

Bowyer states that, in the system as it is now in the USA, “If one of your guys (a Doctor) is a Jihadist spending all their time reading online Osama Bin Laden fatwa’s somebody’s going to notice.” Whereas the NHS in the UK this “Jihadist doctor” would and did become “invisible” and was unnoticed. You cannot tell if someone is a terrorist strictly based on appearance, they may be Indian, African American, Asian even Caucasian. By removing the foreign doctor influence in the UK, they would also be removing mostly “innocent” members rather than the Terrorist Muslims that Jerry Bowyer would likely label them to be.

Nearly every statement claimed by Bowyer, requires back up research in order to get a clearer and more accurate view on the correlation between national healthcare and terrorism, if there is even one at all. In order to give a more intellectual report it would have been necessary for him to deal with the complexities of the issue by presenting precise data from dependable sources rather than conjuring up his own impractical comparisons. His approach is entirely superficial.

The FOX network contributes to the bias by using scare tactics to manipulate their viewers. The scrolling news at the bottom of the screen is strictly related to terrorists and terrorism activity for the first three and a half minutes of the video. It repeatedly uses words like threat, terror and even a message that says “TERROR ALERT ELEVATED”. All of these words induce fearful emotions while you watch the program. This combined with the negative images and chaos in the background makes it very difficult to concentrate on the topic of the video. This could be very persuasive to an audience of viewers that are given no substantial or reliable data to rely on. Likely, this was their intention seeing as viewers had no accurate records; they may be automatically inclined to agree with his biased opinion against National Healthcare.